I agree that the government has no business sticking it's nose into what goes on in the bedroom of two (or more) consenting adults but the government does have a responsibility/(obligation?) to either protect people from being discriminated against or allowing majority rule to prevent people from behaving in ways that the "majority" finds to be morally reprehensible. Filing a tax return, a married man and woman have the right to file married filing jointly or married filing separately. Same-sex couples have to file as single. A married man and woman can jointly adopt a child. With same-sex couples only one or the other can adopt a child, not both. A married man and woman can have health insurance for the other. A same-sex couple only can if the employer or insurance company allows for it. (Granted I believe more and more do allow it). I know that there are other legal issues that are out there that currently exist as well.

There are multiple points of view, but essentially you have the liberal side that says love is love let anyone marry who wants to marry. Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin. And then there are all points in between.

I know what the media considers conservative, and I know what many Republicans consider conservative, but atrue "conservative" would say that government has no place telling anybody what a marriage is, nor may a government confer benefits (especially financial benefits) on married persons. Doing so is discrimination. If you give people tax credits for having kids, isn't that discrimination?

Doesn't this have the potential to be more about why the government should step in to allow the freedom for all consenting adults to marry? Is it not a matter of civil rights? I mean we may still have ministers or Justices out there who'd refuse to marry two people because of personal reasons, and we don't want the law to be on their side, now do we. It has to be clear that the Law of the Land shall be that all consenting adults are allowed to marry without hindrance or prejudice.

Doesn't this have the potential to be more about why the government should step in to allow the freedom for all consenting adults to marry? Is it not a matter of civil rights? I mean we may still have ministers or Justices out there who'd refuse to marry two people because of personal reasons, and we don't want the law to be on their side, now do we. It has to be clear that the Law of the Land shall be that all consenting adults are allowed to marry without hindrance or prejudice.

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.

That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target. Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target. Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.

But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened. If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I will be shocked if a bunch of evangelical republican nuts get something right for once, but just about every civilized nation in the world is legalizing gay marriage now - as they well should

Here is what I'm talking about. The discussion on whether something should be legalized does two things:

1. It gives ill-informed people a chance to look "right" and fire off rhetorical ammunition (look at the assumptions in this comment "evangelical republican nuts")2. And worse, it ignores the real issue: Why does government tell us what marriage is? They don't tell us what friendship is. Well, NY is working on it.

++++

On a side note, telling me that "every civilized nation in the world" is doing it- that is a bandwagon fallacy. You should have learned better in middle school.

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target. Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.

But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened. If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I choose the right side of history and I hope the Supremes do to.

"Choose the right side of history." Another loaded phrase I don't appreciate. It assumes too much.

Listen. I believe in people making their own associations and contracts as they see fit. The federal government backing black college kids...what do you mean by that? Are you saying the National Guard needs to be at every gay wedding? I am really confused here.

I am in favor of people making their own unions and contracts, whatever those may be. My position makes the gay marriage issue moot.

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target. Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.

But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened. If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I choose the right side of history and I hope the Supremes do to.

Listen. I believe in people making their own associations and contracts as they see fit. The federal government backing black college kids...what do you mean by that? Are you saying the National Guard needs to be at every gay wedding? I am really confused here.

I am in favor of people making their own unions and contracts, whatever those may be. My position makes the gay marriage issue moot.

And I appreciate that-- I'm saying that if it isn't moot for some misguided folk who might want to take things in their own hands or prevent a couple from marrying, someone has to step in and say "Sorry; it doesn't matter what you think, the law says these two people can marry. If you deny that right or take action to prevent it, you are breaking the laws of the United States and may be prosecuted. Have a nice day".

Scott gave me a position in the poll, and I'm the first to vote for it.

My religious views give me a clear position on gay marriage, but just because something is against my beliefs, that doesn't mean that I should be in favor of laws prohibiting it.

Thank you Rob. I'll be honest in saying that I am hoping to see more votes here. I am also somewhat surprised that as of yet noone has voted for either of the state options. That seems to be one of the top argument that I hear being made against the federal government making this decision; essentially saying that the federal government shouldn't interfere with state rights here.

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target. Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.

But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened. If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I choose the right side of history and I hope the Supremes do to.

Listen. I believe in people making their own associations and contracts as they see fit. The federal government backing black college kids...what do you mean by that? Are you saying the National Guard needs to be at every gay wedding? I am really confused here.

I am in favor of people making their own unions and contracts, whatever those may be. My position makes the gay marriage issue moot.

And I appreciate that-- I'm saying that if it isn't moot for some misguided folk who might want to take things in their own hands or prevent a couple from marrying, someone has to step in and say "Sorry; it doesn't matter what you think, the law says these two people can marry. If you deny that right or take action to prevent it, you are breaking the laws of the United States and may be prosecuted. Have a nice day".

Option #5: it is the only one that fits 1:1 with my beliefs. It is a matter of definition, regardless of any law, both inside and outside the US. But I don't consider myself the right guy to tell others how they should give shape to their relationships.

Option #5: it is the only one that fits 1:1 with my beliefs. It is a matter of definition, regardless of any law, both inside and outside the US. But I don't consider myself the right guy to tell others how they should give shape to their relationships.

A very candid response. Let's cut to the chase here: this is not about the perceived morality of same sex marriage. No sane individual could raise any cogent argument to preclude same sex marriage on the grounds of doctrinal beliefs capable of withstanding scrutiny by contemporary jurisprudence. This is about money i.e. how do you feel about your tax dollars going towards concessions to be enjoyed by same sex couples? As far as playing the tax victim card goes, it's single people of both genders who are discriminated against as far as taxation is concerned. Why should a couple of differing/same sexes who can avail themselves of joint earnings/benefits, be entitled to pay less tax than a single person? Does this constiture the real discrimination at work here?

There should have been an option "I can't believe the world is still so backwards as to be having this debate in 2013." I do feel sorry for those who should have been born in the 16th century but were instead born in the 20th, but they're just going to have to adapt.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

"Forcing bans on the choices we make, which includes who we want to marry, is a part of the government's sphere. If we fight and get rights back, that means we've simply fought for what we have already been born with."

Option #5: it is the only one that fits 1:1 with my beliefs. It is a matter of definition, regardless of any law, both inside and outside the US. But I don't consider myself the right guy to tell others how they should give shape to their relationships.

A very candid response. Let's cut to the chase here: this is not about the perceived morality of same sex marriage. No sane individual could raise any cogent argument to preclude same sex marriage on the grounds of doctrinal beliefs capable of withstanding scrutiny by contemporary jurisprudence. This is about money i.e. how do you feel about your tax dollars going towards concessions to be enjoyed by same sex couples? As far as playing the tax victim card goes, it's single people of both genders who are discriminated against as far as taxation is concerned. Why should a couple of differing/same sexes who can avail themselves of joint earnings/benefits, be entitled to pay less tax than a single person? Does this constiture the real discrimination at work here?

Interestingly enough, there is in fact a marriage tax penalty here in the U.S. Or at least there can be depending on certain situations. Being married actually can cause two taxpayers to pay more taxes than if they had remained single. If one works and the other doesn't then there is a benefit, but both of them are working, there is a good chance it will cause them to pay more taxes then if they were single. This discrepancy was actually fixed as part of the Bush tax cuts and is still mostly fixed, although the changes that were made in January did allow for some marriage tax penalties to creep back in.

To be honest, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the issue itself, but I do care about the surrounding circumstances.

Everyone should have the right to be happy, and if a lot of people can only become that way with a partner of the same gender, then so be it. A society should not have a right to withhold that from their members.

For the state(s) it's just a matter of possibly lost revenue in taxes. This is probably the most morally decrepit factor.

From what I've seen of the 'outraged righteous protestors', they mainly seem to consist of the same folks and their children who already opposed such things women's rights, racial equality, free love, and the abolition of child labor. Pretty pathetic bunch.

And the church can get forked. Also up their arses. But then again they'd probably enjoy that.

The state issue just really comes down to is how deeply divided/diverse this country is. There are areas of the country that are deeply liberal and there are areas that are deeply conservative. So the gist is, let the liberal states have their gay marriages but allow the conservative states to not allow them. In a sense, this is a compromise that would make both sides of the argument "happy". Although, if you are a liberal living in a conservative state (I am looking at you Slarti ) or a conservative living in a liberal state than it would continue to be an issue.

And to agree with npjnpj, I honestly can't give a rat's ass either. It is another one of those hot topic political issues that really doesn't have any affect on my well-being one way or another. Unless a Bill Gates or Donald Trump comes calling with offers of marriage there is no chance in hell of me marrying a man, and even then I don't think that there is enough money in the world to make me do that. That being the case, it is still one of those hot topic political issues that has a way of being quite exasperating. As has already been said. This is the 21st century, it is time to move on from 16th Century thinking.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum